232866 Bullies, 3803 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 51 to 60 of 202
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 23456 7891016 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,592

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:26pm

    supporting member
     Style: 

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    Well, thanks for demonstrating that you WERE defending Wikipedia and were thus lying previously.

    Now, on to the Nature article. If you were truly a graduate student, you could see the deadly limitations to the article right away. For one thing, the article itself was not peer-reviewed.
    Blatant trolling. I'm definitely defending MY use of Wikipedia, today, as well as the vast amount of factually correct information in it. I doubt a single one of you can say without lying you've never relied on it.

    "Deadly limitations"? I am not going to start new debates about the authenticity of peer reviewed journals with people, sorry.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    If EB's refutations of various specific "errors" are all correct, by the way, then EB would end up being far more than 31% more accurate than Wikipedia. Heck, even if half of them are, it would be sufficient to blow Wikipedia entirely out of the water.
    I'll take the credibility of a peer reviewed science journal's study over a PR defense piece written by Britannica's lawyers any day. Because how can Britannica keep selling those $$$$ books if the Internet can make one for free? Please...
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/25/2010 7:30pm at .
  2. keyoz is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    153

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:29pm


     Style: No-Gi BJJ/MMA/MT noob

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Encyclopedias are either compendiums of information from all branches of knowledge or one particular branch. Wikipedia being a general knowledge encyclopedia lacks the detail and specific knowledge necessary to describe many of the finer points of a particular topic- in this case martial arts.
  3. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,737

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:31pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    Blatant trolling. I'm definitely defending MY use of Wikipedia, today, as well as the vast amount of factually correct information in it. I doubt a single one of you can say without lying you've never relied on it.
    I've never relied on it. Also, there is no functional difference between defending "the vast amount of factually correct information" on Wikipedia, and defending Wikipedia as a credible source. What makes the source credible, if not that it is accurate?

    "Deadly limitations"? I am not going to start new debates about the authenticity of peer reviewed journals with people, sorry.
    As already explained, the report was in the news section of Nature, not the peer-reviewed study section. Have you actually read the article? Any issue of Nature? Do you know who Jim Giles is? (Hint: he's a reporter, not a scholar who produces peer-reviewed studies.)

    My two publications in Nature weren't peer-reviewed either.
    Last edited by Rivington; 6/25/2010 7:34pm at .
  4. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,100

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:32pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    If you actually go and read any post that isn't a response to Sri, you, or Der (apologies to Der who took a different stance...) you'd find that's not true. My first posts are always polite and helpful (even if some were misguided).

    :deadhorse
    Yes, I left you 13%.
  5. Sri Hanuman is offline
    Sri Hanuman's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,492

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:33pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Cheng Man Ching Taijiquan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I predict indignant ragequit in 5-10 more posts.
    That, or complete blowout.
    =================
    Kama Sutra blue belt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    I used to **** guys like you in prison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
    Dude I kill people for a fucking living.

    Dipshit
  6. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,592

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:37pm

    supporting member
     Style: 

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by keyoz View Post
    Encyclopedias are either compendiums of information from all branches of knowledge or one particular branch. Wikipedia being a general knowledge encyclopedia lacks the detail and specific knowledge necessary to describe many of the finer points of a particular topic- in this case martial arts.
    Good point but you can say the say about EB. But is Wikipedia 100% unreliable as a source as people keep posting? Nope. It's about as accurate as the world's accepted encyclopedic authority (EB) putting it well ahead of many other sources, according to a peer reviewed journal, minus a counterpoint press release issued by EB, which is a for-profit organization.

    Sometimes people just want to believe the Internet itself isn't reliable. The truth is there is just information on the Internet, what you choose to cite as truth/falsehood depends on your personal worldview and how careful you are in following leads. Christ, I've found plenty of questionable information on this site and others that are accepted as canon but would be laughed at by real scholars.
  7. Snake Plissken is offline
    Snake Plissken's Avatar

    When I Get Back

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,559

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:39pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Have you reported back on your Wikipedia findings for Bullshido, yet?
  8. Uncle Skippy is offline

    See my tongue. SEE IT!

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Out West, USA
    Posts
    2,334

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:40pm

    Business Class Supporting Member
      Style: BJJ, MT, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    I'm definitely defending MY use of Wikipedia, today, as well as the vast amount of factually correct information in it. I doubt a single one of you can say without lying you've never relied on it.
    I've used it. I haven't relied on it. There is a significant difference when talking about research for publication and just wanting to know the time of year in which a llama's undercoat begins to thin.

    If you use Wikipedia as a source for publishable information, then you are either lazy or stupid.
    Last edited by Uncle Skippy; 6/25/2010 7:46pm at .
  9. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,737

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:43pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    It's at least 31% less accurate as some popular encyclopedia, according to a feature article written by a journalist using a non peer-reviewed methodology, minus all the listed mistakes I didn't bother to look at provided by a for-profit organization, which Nature, owned by Macmillan, itself is as well.

    Fixed.
  10. Uncle Skippy is offline

    See my tongue. SEE IT!

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Out West, USA
    Posts
    2,334

    Posted On:
    6/25/2010 7:46pm

    Business Class Supporting Member
      Style: BJJ, MT, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    It's about as accurate as the world's accepted encyclopedic authority (EB) putting it well ahead of many other sources, according to a peer reviewed journal, minus a counterpoint press release issued by EB, which is a for-profit organization.
    You do realize the Nature study only looked at science articles, right?

    You also realize that saying Wikipedia is "about as accurate as the world's accepted encyclopedic authority" is a GROSS overstatement of facts, right?

    It is nice that Wikipedia's non-science content gets to piggy back on its science content, which as I previously stated, is a thin wrapper about journal articles. It is hard to be REALLY wrong if you are just regurgitating others' knowledge.

    The Nature study says nothing about the non-science content. The Nature study also says nothing about the severity of the errors, only that they exist. I'm sure weighting the errors based on severity would produce a very different outcome.
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 23456 7891016 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.